>>> So, just to clarify <<<
There are a few potentially relevant crimes, but let’s stick to my favorite one for now.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977...the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit
The willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly
(in this case foreign military aid to the Ukraine which would be sent, mostly, via electronic bank transfer)
In furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money or anything of value
(in this case $400 million)
[to any person
(in this case Ukraine)
while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official
(in this case the president of the Ukraine)
to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty
(the request to open an investigation into the Bidens)
, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.
(in this case the U.S. 2020 presidential election).
So, the facts are essentially undisputed.
Concerning the 6 (six) elements of the potential crime, elements #1, #2, #3 and #4 where factually done, with one possible argument. #1 uses the word “corruptly”. Whether or not the actions in question were done “corruptly” is dependent on element #5… and to #6.
Now, onto elements #5 & #6:
#5: There is a question here, a legitimate legal question, as to whether or not the President of the Ukraine would have been acting “legally” by directing the investigation of the Bidens in return for $400 million in military aid.
#6: There is a question here: Would the public notification that the Ukraine was investigating the Bidens have provided an “advantage” to anyone (Trump) and can a political election be viewed as a “business”?
You decide for yourself.
When deciding keep in mind that not all crimes are viewed as reprehensible behavior, and not all reprehensible behavior is viewed as a crime.
In addition, keep in mind that a “crime” need not have occurred in order for a president to be impeached.
So the real question is: Aside from the potential violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Is it acceptable for a sitting U.S. President to offer and/or threaten to withhold foreign aid to a country in return for that country publicly declaring that it will conduct a criminal investigation of a U.S. citizen.
Oh noes, Chaski. Donald Trump asked a question about possible Democrat corruption.
See, the problem, Chaski, is that Trump released the transcript of that call and all of us could see that no crime was committed - there was no quid pro quo
nor were there conditions put on the aid being given. Trump did not withhold money from Ukraine in return for a favour. Trump did not say the money was being withheld, nor place any condition on it being released. The money was released to Ukraine without any favour being done, and if you listen to the anti-Trump clowns who tried to accuse him recently, they admit that Ukraine was not even aware that the money was
This is more absurd than the recent Russian farce.
I remember you banging on about how many Trump people were indicted. however, if DNC ops were held to the same standard as Trump supporters, would there be any DNC people not sitting in a cell right now? They all made lying an art form.
Just accept the truth Chaski - the DNC tried to steal the election (voter fraud is a thing that the US media would report on if the US had a media), but they failed. They are children who had their lolly taken from them and they are now into their third year of a tanty that will not stop until they get what they want - power by any means necessary.
It's the same self important childishness we see from the Remoaners in the UK.
As far as being pro-Trump, I am to the extent that he is still the only western leader acting on behalf of the people he's elected to govern. I still do not think he should be a leader though. Nor do I agree with everything he does. In fact I disagree with him on a lot of things. It's just that the choice was between a cancerous criminal cabal and an undesirable leader. I chose the undesirable rather than the cabal because I understand that freedom is a value we need to protect.
To be honest, I would prefer that the swamp in the US, Australia, the UK and Europe more broadly, was truly drained of the criminals in positions of power.